Thursday, September 22, 2011

Yorke v. Yorke, 2011 NBCA 79

In Yorke v. Yorke, Larlee J. decided that, barring explicit legislation, RRSPs are family assets, with the presumption of equal division pursuant to the Marital Property Act.

Mrs. Yorke appealed the trial judge's holding that Mr. Yorke's RRSP was not a marital asset since, like an division-exempted pension, it was acquired before the marriage and not contributed to during the marriage. Distinguishing McQuade v. McQaude, an earlier New Brunswick Court of Appeal case in which RRSPs had been held not subject to equal division, on its facts, Larlee J. relied on a definition in the British Columbia Family Relations Act to find that RRSPs are a family asset. She then drew a further distinction between RRSPs to which there were no contributions were made during the marriage and those used to finance the household. Since Mr. York used the RRSP to finance their lifestyle, Larlee J. held it be a martial asset. He concludes the purpose for which the RRSP is used for is the determining factor.

Larlee J. then applied the three criteria outlined in s. 6 of the Marital Property Act to conclude equal division would not be inequitable, contrary to the lower court's ruling. She also highlighted that there was no agreement between the Yorkes exempting the RRSPs from division and that 16 years of cohabitation along with a 12-year marriage are sufficient to qualify as a long-term marriage. Finally, Mrs. Yorke was seen to have made a substantial contribution, contrary to the trial judge's ruling, despite the fact she did not raise any children, did not contribute financially, and stayed at home. Larlee J. held that the RRSPs should be divided equally.

Richard J., in dissent, argued that the matter of whether marital property should be divided equally should be left to the trial judge's discretion. He argued that as long as the trial judge has applied s. 6 of the Marital Property Act to the facts of the case, appellate courts should defer to the lower court's ruling.

September 22, 2011
Link to Decision

Leo Elias & Adrienne Ho
*

No comments:

Post a Comment